Interesting Findings From Hot Seat Testing

[canuckgamer]

Since my friend and I just started our first PBEM game I have been doing some hot seat testing.

1. Page 85 and 86 Invasions. It indicates that you can land on any coastal hex so this is different than WPE where it has to be a beach hex. I did a test with a Japanese fleet consisting of one CV, two surface and one transported ground unit starting in Rabaul. I moved them to hex 91,30 which is a jungle coastal hex and clicked the invasion toggle. That hex and hexes 92,31 and 93,30 were highlighted. I then did undo which returned them to Rabaul. Next I moved them to 92,30 which is also a coastal jungle hex and clicked the invasion toggle. That hex and hexes 91,30 and 92,31 and 93,30 lit up. These two moves confirmed you could invade a non beach coastal hex.
2. However I tried to move the fleet to hexes 110,20 and 11,19 both coastal jungle hexes and it would not allow the fleet to move there.

Why the difference in these hexes even though they are all jungle coastal?

The next question involves a situation that happened in our PBEM game in the following sequence.

There were a number of naval interdictions, naval air strikes, and carrier combats against an American fleet consisting of the Lexington, Enterprise, Warspite BB, Arizona BB, Salt Lake CA and a transported ground unit. The Enterprise was sunk in in a naval air strike by a land based air. The final attack was a surface combat. The attacking Japanese fleet was 3 BB's and 2 CL/DDs. The defending fleet was the Lexington, Warspite, Arizona, Salt Lake and the transported ground unit. The Lexington was sunk with no losses to the Japanese. This seems to indicate that the target profiles changed due to earlier carrier and naval air combat. How else to explain that none of the 3 screening surface ships suffered any damage but the Lexington was sunk?

I also noticed that in all the naval air strikes and carrier combats, neither side lost one air but they both suffered AA losses which I find odd.

[AlvaroSousa]

I think you have your hexes mixed up. 91,30 isn't not a hex a fleet can move into.

This is how it works.

Beach hexes have ~10-20% land. Naval can move in, land can only disembark and move out. They can move to any land hex they connect to.

Landing zone hexes have with strips with 0% land. They are considered like beaches but can connect to any land hex around them.

Coastal hexes are ~50% land. Naval and land can move into them. A player may disembark a unit on the hex if there is no unit in there.

Land hexes are more than 60% land. Only land units can move into them. You can't invade them.

You can always click a fleet then the "z" button to show all potential invasion hexes. Invasions cost 1 operation point.

Naval targeting has not changed for surface combat. It might be simply you got unlucky. If this happened every battle that is different.

As for CV air losses look at your effectiveness. But I will run some tests myself.

[canuckgamer]

As always, thanks for your replies. In another hot seat test we moved 3 heaving Japanese carriers within range of the Australian land based air which at the time had a strength of 10. It intercepted and sank one of the carriers. In one of my previous posts you replied that land based air represent 300 planes vs. 100 on a carrier of which only about 1/3 were fighters.
However we are wondering if land based air should be tweaked because they are very lethal and have a range up to 10 vs. 3 for carriers. Historically the CVs were the most important weapon for both sides but in WPP land based air seem to be more powerful. There may have been a UK carrier sunk by land based air early in the war but I can't think of one American or Japanese CV that was sunk by land based air units. I know you are always evaluating changes for both games so please consider this.

[canuckgamer]

Other thoughts. Weren't medium bombers wildly inaccurate attacking ships because they were bombing from altitude in addition to ships being able to maneuver to avoid these bombs?
The deadly air came from CVs who used dive bombing and torpedoes although early in the war the American torpedo bombers were not every effective. I can't think of one American or Japanese CV that was sunk by land based air.
I just looked at the values of CV vs. land based air units with the CVs having a naval air value of 10 vs. 2 for land based so maybe you have already taken this in to account.

[ncc1701e]

1. Page 85 and 86 Invasions. It indicates that you can land on any coastal hex so this is different than WPE where it has to be a beach hex. I did a test with a Japanese fleet consisting of one CV, two surface and one transported ground unit starting in Rabaul. I moved them to hex 91,30 which is a jungle coastal hex and clicked the invasion toggle. That hex and hexes 92,31 and 93,30 were highlighted. I then did undo which returned them to Rabaul. Next I moved them to 92,30 which is also a coastal jungle hex and clicked the invasion toggle. That hex and hexes 91,30 and 92,31 and 93,30 lit up. These two moves confirmed you could invade a non beach coastal hex.
2. However I tried to move the fleet to hexes 110,20 and 11,19 both coastal jungle hexes and it would not allow the fleet to move there.

Just press the Z hotkey before moving to know which hex can be invaded. This is useful.

---

Z hotkey.JPG (109.32 KiB) Viewed 697 times

[AlvaroSousa]

All good points but land based air rules over CV based air in every theater at all times. This is just how it was. Thus why WPP is about bases.

Battle of the Philippine Sea.

1 land air unit, 9/3 CV/CVL ~750ac
vs
7/8 CV/CVL ~900ac

This is what it took the USN to enter that arena.

In WPP the Japanese will/should have 2-3 air units in this same battle.
Yea land based air is incredibly effective.

Planes are cheap. Pilots are expensive.
Germans had 40,000 planes sitting around in 1944. Not enough pilots or fuel.

[Cad908]

All good points but land based air rules over CV based air in every theater at all times. This is just how it was.

I recommend you review the air battles off Formosa (October 1944). Wikipedia is certainly not a definitive source, but this link does provide a reasonable summary of the engagement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formosa_Air_Battle

I believe it is accurate to say absent an effective air screen, any surface fleet would have been foolish to venture into range of land based air concentrations. This was the case throughout the war, though it took time for some admirals to grasp the new reality. But, by 1944 the US Fast Carrier Task Forces dominated the air space anywhere they wanted.

-Rob

[AlvaroSousa]

Yea but here you had 1400 crap pilots against 1200 experienced pilots. It is not the plane it is the pilot.

As I said I don't put this level of incompetence on the player. We just assume they train their pilots.

Also what kind of aircraft? They all weren't dive bombers from the Japanese air force.

So perhaps you are talking about 5x 30% experienced land based air vs 17 CVs with 60% experience here. The CVs are worth twice as much. Also the late war AA.

[Cad908]

Alvaro,

My comment was intended to be a somewhat playful reply to your comment:

land based air rules over CV based air in every theater at all times

Beware using absolute expressions.

So, your reply argues pilot quality and airframe development were important aspects in the dominant position the US developed over Japan from 1944. I strongly agree with your position. Will you keep those aspects in mind when coding WPP2?

Cheers.

-Rob

[AlvaroSousa]

In general. The pilot is way more important than the aircraft.

One example is the Finnish pilot mostly flying a buffalo against the Soviet air force for most of the war. He was an ace with an inferior air craft.

Another is the ace Japanese pilot that fought 16 P-38 in an air battle and got away.

Another is the several German pilot aces against the Soviets.

Or that the Soviet air force was pretty crushed by the more experienced German pilots in the war till later one. By 1942 they had comparable aircraft.

You can even look at the Battle of Kursk.
Germans lost ~150 of 2000 a/c the Soviets ~1000 of 2700. That is a fairly big difference.

My sources are an expert on WW2 military history that has read countless books and the books he told me to read.

Also look at the Vietnam war kill ratio. What was it 15:1? Was it the F-4 at the time vs the Mig-21? It wasn't that large of a difference in technology but the kill ratio difference was due to pilot training.

[Cad908]

Alvaro,

On balance, a skilled pilot flying an inferior airframe will usually triumph over a poor pilot in a better airplane. There are limits of coarse as I do not think an ace flying a WWII era fighter has much chance against a modern jet fighter piloted by a novice.

From a game perspective it is interesting how you model that dynamic. The contest between the US and Japan provides a case we are all familiar with. When the conflict commenced, I suggest the game state was:

Japanese Airframes were superior to US ones
Japanese Pilots were slightly superior to US pilots

By the start of 1944, US Airframes were superior and US Pilots VASTLY superior to the Japanese.

Those outcomes were driven by a massively superior US Pilot training program and its industrial / technological dominance over Japan. The game designer needs to model that process, so do you hard code it into your program (a closed loop system) or present the player with an option to invest X resources into the system to improve their outcomes? For example, you could give the Japanese an option to start the game with an "enhanced pilot training program" as the cost of X fuel and Y industrial capacity per turn.

IMO no game has yet gotten the right "feel" for WWII.

I apologize that my conversation has gotten WAY off topic.

Take care.

-Rob

[AlvaroSousa]

Totally fine. The CVs start with more XP. That is how I did it. But it is hard to balance.

[AlvaroSousa]

And we are talking WW2 planes not a F4U vs an F15 lol. That is hugely different in tech.

[generalfdog]

are you considering some sort of pilot system in wp2?

[AlvaroSousa]

No that just adds tediousness for no reason.

It is assumed all countries properly train pilots.